Canadian Elections 2004

[Devon Lake]

In not too long, I'll be voting for the first time in my country's federal elections. I can honestly say I've never been so disallusioned with democracy. So, for anyone who gives a damn, here's the run down on the major parties:

The Liberal Party: They're in power about 2/3rds of the time, leading many eggheads to dub them "The natural ruling party of Canada". If I were a compulsive gambler, I'd put my money on their winning their fourth consecutive majority government this election. As far as policy goes, I like to think of them as the "status quo" party; rather than actually doing anything, they just sort of kepe the wheels of the state rolling without actually doing anything. They're platform revolves almost entirely on improving the state of healthcare, the biggest concern of most Canadians.

The NDP (Or "New Democratic Party"): The NDP have never formed a ruling party, and by my guess, probably never will. In fact, I'm not sure if they've even ever formed the main opposition party. Anyhow, they're our big socialist party; they wish to decriminalize marijuana, officially recognise gay marriages, protecting the environmnt, improve funding to medicare, schools, employment ensurance, and start getting the government to pay for our university tuitions again. Now, that all sounds well and good with me, I just don't trust them not to run up our national defecit which is already proportionally bigger than that of the US. Also, I'm afraid their crazy rabid unionists are going to do something stupid to scare away the entire bloody economy.

The Conservatives: Not long ago we had two right wing parties but after a few decades, they realised that having the votes of the right wing split between two parties just allowed the liberals to win in more ridings. Anyhow, I like to think of them as evil incarnate. They're the only party intent on banning gay marriages, they wish to move to two-tier healthcare, they wish to recriminalise abortions, return capitol punishment up the military so that we can pointlessly tag along whever the US sends out its forces, and inact insane ammounts of tax cuts, especially to the folks who don't need them like the rich or big businesses. Oh ya, many of them are also big avengelical Christian zealots. They promise that despite the ridiculous tax cuts they wish to enact that they'd continue funding all our social programs as is, despite any mathematical sense. My guess is that they just want medicare and Unemployment Ensurance to go broke and to pray that no subsequent government rebuilds it.

The Bloq: Some crazy French party whose platform revolves entirely along Quebec seperating to make their own homeland or something. No one really cares about them anymore because the seperatism fad is dead.

Anyhow, I'd really like to vote or the NDP, even considering their flaws, but the Conservatives are so evil that I'm probably just going to vote Liberal to keep them out of power. The liberals are just like the "NDP lite" party anyway. I still wish I could vote for what I wanted... Stupid Convservative party. That they can even have such policies makes me disgusted at the state of our democracy. And yet, the only ones up to democratic reform (Like popular representation instead of this archaic constituency system) is the NDP, which I can't afford to vote for. Bleh.

[Trico]

In fact, I'm not sure if they've even ever formed the main opposition party.
Their best showing yet was in the 1988 elections, under Ed Broadbent (who is running for them again, though not as leader). Even then they were not official opposition.

just don't trust them not to run up our national defecit which is already proportionally bigger than that of the US. I suppose you mean debt? The Liberals have been running a surplus for many years now.

Anyway, I absolutely despise the Conservative party, but the Liberals absolutely need to be removed from power. The ideal position for me would be perhaps an NDP minority forming a coalition with the Liberals, but that is certainly not happening this time.

I do love the NDP, but I doubt they would be prepared to govern if given the chance. I sincerely expect the result would be similar to the infamous Bob Rae government in Ontario.

I do not trust the Liberals, though, as they have given so many reasons not to. Anyone remember the Red Book? Or how about the sponsorship scandal? Shawinigate? Any of these ring a bell?

My reasons for despising the conservatives run along the same lines as those outlined in the topic : They're the only party intent on banning gay marriages, they wish to move to two-tier healthcare, they wish to recriminalise abortions, return capitol punishment up the military so that we can pointlessly tag along whever the US sends out its forces, and inact insane ammounts of tax cuts, especially to the folks who don't need them like the rich or big businesses. Oh ya, many of them are also big avengelical Christian zealots. They promise that despite the ridiculous tax cuts they wish to enact that they'd continue funding all our social programs as is, despite any mathematical sense. To emphasise that, the Conservatives spending promises double those of the Liberals, yet the Liberals have promised no tax cuts. The conservatives have suggested taxes should be lower even than those in the United States. I don't actually trust same-sex marriage to make it through a Liberal government, either, though, especially if the conservative presence grows. Even bill C-150 made it through only by the slimmest of margins.


The Bloq: Some crazy French party whose platform revolves entirely along Quebec seperating to make their own homeland or something. No one really cares about them anymore because the seperatism fad is dead.
Actually, the Bloc looks to take the vast majority of seats in quebec. It may not seem like much, but in the past they have formed the official opposition.


I guess my opinion is that the government is doomed for at least four more years. Aren't I the optimist?

[semysane]

I'll be voting for the first time myself this year. I'm probably going to vote NDP myself. We have some fairly interesting fringe parties as well, don't forget.

Green Party: Essentially Green Peace with less hippies. But not much.

Marijuana Party: All of the other hippies. Their platform revolves around legalizing pot.

Communist Party: Believe it or not, there actually is one. There's even a communist candidate in my riding. He's surprisingly convincing.

[Trico]

I'll be voting for the first time myself this year. I'm probably going to vote NDP myself. We have some fairly interesting fringe parties as well, don't forget.

Green Party: Essentially Green Peace with less hippies. But not much.

Marijuana Party: All of the other hippies. Their platform revolves around legalizing pot.

Communist Party: Believe it or not, there actually is one. There's even a communist candidate in my riding. He's surprisingly convincing.

We actually have two Communist parties. One running as communist and the other as marxist-leninist.

We also have Canadian action, christian heritage, and Libertarian.

[Devon Lake]

I suppose you mean debt? The Liberals have been running a surplus for many years now.

Ya; debt, defecit... I always mix those two up. Oh well, at least it's less embarassing than mixing up body fluids.

I don't think the NDP have such a bad chance this time around. I mean, the news actually mentions them once in a while. That's more than I could say for them in a long time. The polls are also looking relatively favoreable as far as I've seen lately; because of all the screw ups of the provincial liberals in Ontario, a lot of folks here are jumping ship to the NDP.

Anyhow, I think gay marriage is safe under the Liberals. Paul Martin doesn't seem exactly fond of the idea yet it seems like he claims he supports them anyway; Of course, support for him basically means not to touch it with a ten foot poll and instead just let the courts handle it; it Supreme Court has already decided in favor of same sex marriages so it's not much of a problem in that respect. It's not as solid as having actual legislation as the NDP would like, but the Conservatives would just go trigger happy with the Notwithstanding Clause in the Charter of Right and Freedoms to ban gay marriages despite the courts (That is by the way how they wish to recriminalise abortions to.)

Communist Party: Believe it or not, there actually is one. There's even a communist candidate in my riding. He's surprisingly convincing.

True story: They had an office in the building where I used to take Kung-Fu, I never had the guts to go in. I voted for them in the last provincial election just for kicks. Apparently there's also a "Marxist Lenninist Party" running to.

Oh, there's also the "Rhinosaurous Party" whose one policy is to change Canada's National animal to the Rhinosaurous.

Has anyone else heard of the "Natural Law Party" of Canada? They're a bunch of wackos who claim all government problems can be solved through transcendental meditation. A quick run through the registered parties provides some pretty crazy results; "Absolutely Absurd Party", "Grey Party", "Undecided Party", and "Ontario Party".

[Beau]

I always find it funny Canada has communist parties when we're already a socialist country.

And what's up with PM Martin's talk about making revolutions with wind power? I mean, it sounds great and all, but has he ever really had anything to back this up?

[Devon Lake]

I always find it funny Canada has communist parties when we're already a socialist country.

We're still a long way from the Soviet Union and central planning. There's a big difference between the socialism of the Swedes say and that of East Germany...

[Beau]

Yeah, I'm aware of that much, I was just having some fun. That's what keeps us from getting in too much trouble. Our sense of humour.

[Omega Mage Zero]

The Liberal Party: They're in power about 2/3rds of the time, leading many eggheads to dub them "The natural ruling party of Canada". If I were a compulsive gambler, I'd put my money on their winning their fourth consecutive majority government this election. As far as policy goes, I like to think of them as the "status quo" party; rather than actually doing anything, they just sort of kepe the wheels of the state rolling without actually doing anything. They're platform revolves almost entirely on improving the state of healthcare, the biggest concern of most Canadians.

Improving healthcare? That's strange, all I hear in America is how great healthcare is in Canada. Is it not as perfect as a lot of Americans think?

BTW, I know an embarassingly small amount about Canada. I live pretty far from the border. Sorry if this seems a stupid question to the natives.

[Beau]

By "great", most Americans mean "free".
Yes, we do have free health care (and find it quite strange not everyone does) but that doesn't make it perfect by a long shot.

[Devon Lake]

Improving healthcare? That's strange, all I hear in America is how great healthcare is in Canada. Is it not as perfect as a lot of Americans think?

BTW, I know an embarassingly small amount about Canada. I live pretty far from the border. Sorry if this seems a stupid question to the natives.

Ya, it's definately not perfect, but then, name one thing that can't be improved upon? The problem is that since all the funding cuts in the 90's the quality of Canada's healthcare has deteriorated (Unexpectedly.) It's free and it provides equal access to all, but thing's are far from ideal these days. Particularly here in Ontario where the provincial government also underfunded medicare.

Access to doctors has fallen significantly. I even know some folks who just don't have a family doctor. Last time I was in the hospital, I had to wait for hours to see the doctor. Ditto with my sister when she get whacked in the head from a hockey game. Most annoying to me is the waiting lists to see specialists. It took me months to start seeing my psychologist and even longer to finally see the fertility specialist who froze my sperm (Which the state didn't cover) and proscribe my hormones (We still have to pay for drugs to.) I can't imagine how pissed the folks on a waiting list for surgeries and other proceedures must be.

Oh well, those are all just inconveiniances really. It's no like there's anyone who can't get treated or anything. I'd rather put up with that than the shame of being priveliged with better healthcare than everyone else just for having a rich daddy. The idea that we'd drag the class system into such basic human rights as life and security of person sickens me. What problems socialised medicine experiences here would be rendered nill if the government only funded it properly (Thus the Liberal platform.) and got back to subsidizing post secondary education so that we'd have people qualified to become doctors in the first place.

[KhanFusion]

And then raise the crap out of taxes, and cut funding for other crap to pay for it all, right?

[slightly aboveaverage man]

Well, most people blame the Liberals for the loss of funding with Healthcare. So many cuts were forced upon social programs because of Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government in the 80's. He grew the National Debt to 550 Billion dollars, and created a deficit of over 75 billion dollars per year! Jean Chretien's Liberals were forced to cut spending in order to prevent the country from collapsing into bankrupsy.
In addition, while the Conservatives grew the debt by 300 billion dollars, the Liberals have shrunk the debt by $50 billion in just 5 years.

Now that we are in the Surplus stages, The Liberals are now rebuilding the Healthcare system they damaged, except this time, not on borrowed money. The Liberals are now the status quo party, but if you look at things logically, they created the Status Quo. Paul Martin wishes to improve upon it.

I am able to vote for the first time this time around, and I am guaranteed to vote for the Liberals this year. Yes they have had a few scandals, but compared to what they have done for the country in the past few years, they are pretty minor. I am a Hardcore Liberal, but that does not mean that completely support what they have done. Personally I love the party, but I am uneasy about Paul Martin. I did not like how he slimily cut Jean Chretien's feet out from under him in order to take over. I question his morals, but I recognize that he gets results.

The Conservative Party is just the Reform Party: Version 3.0. If Peter MacKay had run and won the leadership, they may have posed a real alternative, but with Stephen Harper at the helm, they are too right-winged.

The NDP promises the world, but they have no way to pay for it. they have said it themselves, they will pay for their promises by Raising Taxes, Taxing the Wealthy, and Taxing the Corporations. Who knows what that could do to the Economy. With the NDP in charge, It would be another Mulroney Government: Incredible amount of spending, but the Debt would double or even TRIPLE!

Thus, I will be voting Liberal, hoping that Geoff Regan, the Fisheries Minister and my MP will get back in. My vote has to count for something.

Edit: Beau: Maritimers Rule! Go New Scotland!

[Devon Lake]

And then raise the crap out of taxes, and cut funding for other crap to pay for it all, right?

Ya, it takes a pretty high tax load to pay for medicare but it's hardly something I'd begrudge. I mean, who would consider disbanding the roads or education or the police force just to cut taxes? Most Canadians feel that way about Medicare more than anything.

As for cuts to other programs; not particularly, we're heavy spenders across the board. Of course, we only blow 2% of our revenue on the military as apposed to the current 50% or so of the US. I guess we're saving plenty of money that way, but then , the army is about as high a priority to me as the Prime Minister's cocktail parties.

I am able to vote for the first time this time around, and I am guaranteed to vote for the Liberals this year. Yes they have had a few scandals, but compared to what they have done for the country in the past few years, they are pretty minor. I am a Hardcore Liberal, but that does not mean that completely support what they have done. Personally I love the party, but I am uneasy about Paul Martin. I did not like how he slimily cut Jean Chretien's feet out from under him in order to take over. I question his morals, but I recognize that he gets results.

Ya, I don't feel too badly about the Liberals either. They had a few nasty scandals, but I think that's just an inevitability of power really. They certainly faired better than the Mulruney government in that respect, but then, that's hardly saying much. I agree with your about Paul Martin to. Honestly, he seems too far to the right for my tastes: I could hardly trust a multi-billion dollar business tycoon like him in power anyway. I sort of miss Chreatien. Sure he seemed kind of seedy, but he was talking about decriminalising marijuana and recognizing gay marriages near the end; if he had been given more time in power he might have followed through.

P.S. Maratimers eh? My parents are both born and bred Newfies. I'm going there again this summer for a cousin's wedding. Great place. I ought to bring a tape recorder just so that I can listen to the accent later...

[slightly aboveaverage man]

It's not the fact that he's rich that gets me, after all, Trudeau and Chretien were both millionares, but that he would do anything for power. I was rooting for John Manley in the Liberal Leadership Race. Now that was a good prospect for Prime Minister. I also think that Martin has made some good choices for his cabinet. David Pratt is the best Defense Minister weve had since the 1970's, and Ralph Goodale brings a level of quality rarely seen in any of the portfolio's he takes over.

Defense is a high priority on my list, Canada used to be the 4th largest military in the world, but now we've degraded to second-last in NATO. I like Martin's policies of increased spending for Defense, The Military provides jobs for the civilian population, as does the building of equipment; thus the Military improves the economy.

Actually Newfoundland is not considered a part of the Maritimes. The Maritimes are just Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island.

So what part of the country are you guys from? What Parties control your area?

[Devon Lake]

Defense is a high priority on my list, Canada used to be the 4th largest military in the world, but now we've degraded to second-last in NATO. I like Martin's policies of increased spending for Defense, The Military provides jobs for the civilian population, as does the building of equipment; thus the Military improves the economy.

Ya, but back in the day Canada had a reason for a military. Before the 20th Century we needed our armed forces to keep the Yanks from over running us becuase in those days the folks down South were still all uppity about the whole "Mandate Destiny" thing about conquering an empire that enveloped the entire North American Contenent. At this point, our winning a direct aussalt against the US is just unfeasible; the best we could hope for is to be a shitty enough satelite nation that America falls apart trying to administer us. Besides, the US is our biggest ally these days anyway so the whole point is moot.

Beating up fascism and communism was a worthy cause, but it's all over now. The Axis surrendered and the Soviet Union fell apart. And frankly, this nonsensical war upon something as ambiguous as terrorism isn't looking too well to me as a replacement cause. Sure, it'd be all well and good if the developed world got off it's duff to declare a "War to Finally Enforce the Universal Declarations of Human Rights" but that's not happening any time in the forseeable future.

As for the military creating jobs, that's really a moot point because any government spending is an injection into the economy (See Meynard Keynes.) You know, the entire medical system can account for as much as 25% of a nation's GDP. I'd sooner our resources and jobs be invested in thing that help us like education, medicare, and the environment rather than training a bunch of jocks to march around all day and blow crap up.

Edit: Oh, and Newfies rock anyway. I'm currently in Ontario but I'm not sure where I'll head when schools finnished. I'm staying within the country, that's for sure.

[very popular guitar chord]

It's not like Canada's military pre-20th Century was too much to sneeze about either. When *Manifest* Destiny did come around in 1812, the British showed up to help out. As far as this election goes, it's going to be close. Whoever wins, will probably win a Minority government. Then they'll likely be another election with a landslide victory for another majority government soon.

And as far as the Bloc goes, they are quite impressive for a party that dosen't run outside of Quebec. And seperatism isn't quite as dead as everyone would like to believe.

Personally? Not impressed by the Conservative bid to scrap the Kyoto Protocol in favor of its own plan (Which they've yet to name), the Liberal leadership has made me queasy for quite a while, the NDP does have the potential to do well, and Olivia Chow seemed to kill on debate on the CBC a few nights ago, so at least they look like they know what they're doing.

[edit: it's John Meynard Keynes. And who knows, the other folks on this thread may be Monetarists.]

[C-dog]

It'll be my first time voting as well. I'll be voting liberal. A few little scandals that the media has blown out of proportion aren't changing my mind. The liberals seem to have a hold on things right now. The deficit is going down under the liberals, while the NDP would spend and spend. With the deficit gone (eventually), maybe they'll be able to fund healthcare, university education, etc, WITHOUT raising taxes and cutting other services. Maybe I'll vote NDP when the nation isn't in so much debt. The Conservatives are out of the question for me. I don't like their right-wing ideals at all.

[very popular guitar chord]

:: raises an eyebrow ::
Although it IS true that the Federal Debt is a mounting problem, realistically, elminating it won't be possible for almost a generation. While we could solve it right now, economically, I find the NDP solution to be interesting. Someone's already mentioned the Keynesian solution, and if the economy undergoes another bad recession, I definitely want the NDP in office.

IF. There's another recession.

[slightly aboveaverage man]

Actually, the Liberals eliminated the Deficit in 1997, then in less than a decade, shrunk the debt by $50 billion (Compared to the Conservatives increase of 300 billion dollars to the debt.) I say go with the Tried Tested and True...

But I still wish that John Manley had won the Liberal Leadership race.

[batgirl]

What sucks for me was that by the time I was able to vote, I had already moved to the states. However, I've been trying to keep up with the news, and if I were ablt to get back to Canada to vote (I'm still a citizen), I would vote Liberal, only because the NDP didn't get enough press to be popular enough. If I knew that they had a chance to win, I would vote for them, but I think if we give it a few more years, they might amass a following big enough to take on the Liberals.

As for me, before I moved to New York *which is where I live and go to school*, I lived in joyous Montreal, ruled over by the Bloc or the Parti Quebecois or whatever french party was around at the time.

[slightly aboveaverage man]

:: raises an eyebrow ::
Although it IS true that the Federal Debt is a mounting problem, realistically, elminating it won't be possible for almost a generation. While we could solve it right now, economically, I find the NDP solution to be interesting. Someone's already mentioned the Keynesian solution, and if the economy undergoes another bad recession, I definitely want the NDP in office.

IF. There's another recession.

The NDP would be the worst party to have in power during a recession. (Note, Canada did not fall into recession after sept 11 like the states did, the Liberals managed to keep us from falling and keep the GDP/GNP growing, and the National Debt and Unemployment Rate shrinking) The NDP is a spend spend spend party, and on top of that, they like to level huge taxes on big business. High Taxes on Big Business result in big businesses leaving Canada. Big Businesses leaving Canada results in a growing unemployment rate. Growing Unemployment Rate results in falling deeper into recession. I think you can see where I'm going here.

As for me, before I moved to New York *which is where I live and go to school*, I lived in joyous Montreal, ruled over by the Bloc or the Parti Quebecois or whatever french party was around at the time.

Actually Montreal is a Liberal Stronghold in Quebec. :D

[KhanFusion]

A bit off topic, but it needs to be acknowledged, considering the number of Canadians who constantly abuse the concept of the U.S's Manifest destiny, and its fictional involvement in the War of 1812.

Here's one essay concerning Manifest Destiny (http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/dialogues/prelude/manifest/d2heng.html)
And here's an easy read summary of the idea (http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/dialogues/prelude/manifest/d2aeng.html)

Notice that it all happens about 26 years after the War of 1812-14.

Here's a somewhat decent summary of events and causation. (http://gatewayno.com/history/War1812.html)

Here's a really user unfriendly one. (http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.1812.html)



Anyway. I'm not a Canadian Citizen, so I'm obviously not voting for one party or the other. Just take a lesson from the dumbasses who declared the war mentioned above: radicalism is fucking retarded, and gets you beat the hell up.

[slightly aboveaverage man]

radicalism is fucking retarded, and gets you beat the hell up.
This coming from a guy who has Hitler as his avatar! :D :p

[C-dog]

:: raises an eyebrow ::
Although it IS true that the Federal Debt is a mounting problem, realistically, elminating it won't be possible for almost a generation. While we could solve it right now, economically, I find the NDP solution to be interesting. Someone's already mentioned the Keynesian solution, and if the economy undergoes another bad recession, I definitely want the NDP in office.

I know the debt won't be paid off for a generation. The point I wanted to make was that we need it to shrink. With less money going towards the debt, more can go to public services. The debt is a gaping money pit right now. Under the liberals it has shrunk by $50 billion. Under the NDP it would grow. That makes me lean towards the liberals (although it's not the only reason.)

[slightly aboveaverage man]

In addition, you have debt servicing costs, like the down payments that must be paid every month on your visa bill. payment of these adds up to almost 1/3 of Canada's Budget. Non negotiable.

As the debt decreases, so does the amount of money we have to pay each fiscal year.

[very popular guitar chord]

The NDP would be the worst party to have in power during a recession. (Note, Canada did not fall into recession after sept 11 like the states did, the Liberals managed to keep us from falling and keep the GDP/GNP growing, and the National Debt and Unemployment Rate shrinking) The NDP is a spend spend spend party, and on top of that, they like to level huge taxes on big business. High Taxes on Big Business result in big businesses leaving Canada. Big Businesses leaving Canada results in a growing unemployment rate. Growing Unemployment Rate results in falling deeper into recession. I think you can see where I'm going here.


Look, I don't feel like explaining Keynesian Economics right now, so would someone else come up to bat for all us Economists?

[AnonCastillo]

Ya, it's definately not perfect, but then, name one thing that can't be improved upon? The problem is that since all the funding cuts in the 90's the quality of Canada's healthcare has deteriorated (Unexpectedly.) It's free and it provides equal access to all, but thing's are far from ideal these days. Particularly here in Ontario where the provincial government also underfunded medicare.

Access to doctors has fallen significantly. I even know some folks who just don't have a family doctor. Last time I was in the hospital, I had to wait for hours to see the doctor. Ditto with my sister when she get whacked in the head from a hockey game. Most annoying to me is the waiting lists to see specialists. It took me months to start seeing my psychologist and even longer to finally see the fertility specialist who froze my sperm (Which the state didn't cover) and proscribe my hormones (We still have to pay for drugs to.) I can't imagine how pissed the folks on a waiting list for surgeries and other proceedures must be.

Oh well, those are all just inconveiniances really. It's no like there's anyone who can't get treated or anything. I'd rather put up with that than the shame of being priveliged with better healthcare than everyone else just for having a rich daddy. The idea that we'd drag the class system into such basic human rights as life and security of person sickens me. What problems socialised medicine experiences here would be rendered nill if the government only funded it properly (Thus the Liberal platform.) and got back to subsidizing post secondary education so that we'd have people qualified to become doctors in the first place.

*sigh* I can't read further in the thread without commenting on this.

In the Soviet Union, when people had to wait for hours in line just to buy groceries (actually, it was waiting for half an hour in one line to get potatoes, half an hour in another to get bread, half an hour in another to get milk, half an hour in another to get meat, and then another half an hour in a line to pay for each of them after you got them (yes, that's a line to pay for each item, not a line to pay for everything), they said it was just an "inconvenience" and they were glad that class wasn't brought into something as basic as food. After all, you wouldn't want to eat more expensive food just because you had a rich daddy.... Well, until they noticed that even poor people in the US ate better and spent less time waiting in line for their food than the USSR. 'Cause, you know, if you have to wait half an hour for bread in the US, you find another supermarket.

Ditto for hospitals. In Canada, 18% of the population goes without necessary healthcare because there aren't enough doctors to supply their needs. In the US, if your doctor told you you'd have to wait months for an operation you needed tomorrow to stay alive, you'd find another doctor who could perform it right away. Last time I went to the emergency room, you know how long I waited? Less than 5 minutes. Filled out a form, got treated, was out in less time than you spent waiting to see a doctor. It cost a lot less than the difference that Canadians pay in taxes, too, so even though I'm pretty poor (made $15,000 last year, and I'm paying my own way through college with that). In America only about 5% of the population goes without necessary healthcare, even though 15% of the population doesn't have health insurance. Even the poor here have at least some access to healthcare, and can usually get faster and better service than in Canada.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch - what you think you're making up for in cost with "free" healthcare (but are actually paying for in taxes) is made up for with inferior service.

Editing to respond to a few further things:

Besides, the US is our biggest ally these days anyway so the whole point is moot.

Not for long! Just wait until Bush adds you to the Axis of Evil....

As for the military creating jobs, that's really a moot point because any government spending is an injection into the economy (See Meynard Keynes.)

O....
M....
F....
G.

Any government spending is an injection into the economy? Lethal injection, maybe. Keep in mind that any government spending has to be paid for somehow. There are only three ways to pay for government spending:
1. Raise taxes, in which case that government "injection" comes at the cost of government siphoning money out of the economy. This directly hurts businesses, laborers, and consumers.
2. Borrow money, in which case the amount of money banks and investors have to loan to entrepreneurs, who cause the majority of economic growth, is limited by the amount government borrows.
3. Print money, which causes inflation, which, in addition to making everyone's money worth less and being generally bad for people, it destabilizes the money. If you don't even have stable currency, how the hell can you expect to have a stable economy?

Even with taxes, being the least damaging of the three, they're still generally not worth it, especially in large quantities. Private sector spending almost always pays for production and services, government spending mainly pays for the bureaucracy of deciding how to spend the money. For example, in the US, about 70% of the cost of our national welfare program is bureaucracy, the other 30% actually goes to people who need it.. Compare that to private charities, where 10% of their spending goes towards bureaucracy, and the other 90% goes to people who need it. Even when you're talking about something like medicine, a nationalized medical system still has to spend a lot more on centralized planning and on government agencies to run the program, meaning a lot less left over for actually helping patients.

If your only choices in Canada are the Liberals, the Conservatives, and the NDP, I think I'd move. :P However, since someone pointed out that the Conservatives are bigger deficit spenders than the Liberals, as well as being intolerant pricks, I'd probably prefer the Liberals. It's too bad that so few countries have a major political party that combines fiscal responsibility and good economic sense with social tolerance.

[Lucas]

However, since someone pointed out that the Conservatives are bigger deficit spenders than the Liberals not really, just that the last "conservative" government put a 300 billion dollar hole that the liberals were forced to climb out of (they've recouped 50 bil, mostly at the expense of healthcare). if the liberals hadn't reigned in spending, canada would have gone the way of argentina.

oh, and its not quite a lethal injection for military. government spending just shifts market forces and causes jobs that would have appeared in sector A to go to sector B, at the taxpayers expense, of course.

[AnonCastillo]

not really, just that the last "conservative" government put a 300 billion dollar hole that the liberals were forced to climb out of (they've recouped 50 bil, mostly at the expense of healthcare). if the liberals hadn't reigned in spending, canada would have gone the way of argentina.

But that's what I mean, the Conservatives spend and spend without a care in the world, while the Liberals at least try to make sure they can afford spending before doing it.

oh, and its not quite a lethal injection for military. government spending just shifts market forces and causes jobs that would have appeared in sector A to go to sector B, at the taxpayers expense, of course.

"Sector B" usually being a bureaucratic job where money goes in and nothing productive ever comes out. :thief:

[Lucas]

But that's what I mean, the Conservatives spend and spend without a care in the world, while the Liberals at least try to make sure they can afford spending before doing it. again, not really, just capn' brian.

"Sector B" usually being a bureaucratic job where money goes in and nothing productive ever comes out. and how!

[very popular guitar chord]

No matter what you do, you can't solve the social and economic problems all at once. It's just not possible. The economic cycle won't balance out on its own, and Employment and Inflation have a direct relation to one another. Rise in employment means more people are spending more, therefore people can sell for more, until you reach a state of inflation. After that, employment and prices both plummet, dropping you into a recession or state of stagnation.

Then! Then!

Economics says there are two ways out of this problem;
1. The Monetarist Policy - Government does nothing, economy will self-correct.
Pros:
Does not require government intervention or money
Actually works in times of Stagflation

Cons:
Does not work in instances of extended depression (See: 1930s)
Milton Friedman, founder of Monetarism looks kind of funny.

2. The Keynsian Policy - You *HAVE* to spend money to make money. When the government spends money to create make-work projects (cross-ref: Hoover Dam), this creates jobs for people, who have money to spend on necessities and luxuries, thus creating more jobs. From a relatively small injection into the economy, you gain a exponential growth.
Eg.
Government plans to build new highway, hires workers
Workers are paid and spend money on food
Money from buying food goes into supermarket, and to farmer who grows the food (assuming it's a Canadian Supermarket and Canadian Farmer)
Supermarket can open new stores and hire more employees
Employees are paid and spend money on....

Pros:
Will almost always work

Cons:
Does Not work for Stagflation (Times of low employment, but high inflation).
Cost is directly proportional to circumstances of depression
(Relatively small recession, relatively small injection
Batshit loco Depression, Shitload of money)
John Meynard Keynes wasn't a looker either.

3. Neo-Classical Theory - Does not work for modern economy. Period.

Pros:
None

Cons:
Does not work. Ever.

[Archbio]

I'm going to vote Bloc... or NDP. Or Bloc.
Lets just say I'm not decided yet.
Problems with the NDP: They're nice, but they really don't seem to have a working plan. I'm all for a planned (or something not so market related) economy, but just keeping the same economic system and increasing government spending only seems to make debt go up.

Problems with the Bloc: Too particular to Quebec when they don't have to be. Why not create a Provincial Bloc, keep the same platform and maybe extend it to push for decentralisation everywhere they're elected? The Bloc also has jerky ads that go: "Because we're different". Doesn't that make other people different too or are they not allowed?

One thing that bothers me regarding military in the campaign is that both the PLC and the Conservatives promise to augment the budget, only to different degrees. I haven't heard them talk about any change in the use of the military in the short term. I think it should at least be recalled for a year, it can't do good much longer in the state it's in. Focusing less on foreign expeditions could also be a good idea.

Last thing that seemed wrong to me: Harper delegating (in a recent TV interview) every social issue to parliamentary processes. That's disregarding the fact that by running as the leader of the Conservative Party, he's promoting the election of the conservative canditates, which will then make up the new parliament if elected. It's not like he's unaware of their position and has nothing to do with the promotion of these. Of course, it's the interviewers fault for acting like it all depended on Harper's personal views (which remained very obscure during that interview), but you can't escape our ADD afflicted media and society to actually ask information about the canditates we're about to elect.

[AnonCastillo]

No matter what you do, you can't solve the social and economic problems all at once. It's just not possible. The economic cycle won't balance out on its own, and Employment and Inflation have a direct relation to one another. Rise in employment means more people are spending more, therefore people can sell for more, until you reach a state of inflation. After that, employment and prices both plummet, dropping you into a recession or state of stagnation.

Rise in employment does not mean more people are spending more, it means more people are spending the same amount per person. It means more overall spending, but it doesn't mean that each individual consumer has more money to spend (except the few additional employed people, but they won't have more than people who were previously employed). Prices won't increase because most individual consumers don't have any more to spend simply because of a rise in employment.

Then! Then!

Economics says there are two ways out of this problem;
1. The Monetarist Policy - Government does nothing, economy will self-correct.
....
Cons:
Does not work in instances of extended depression (See: 1930s)
Milton Friedman, founder of Monetarism looks kind of funny.

The 1930s are hardly a time period of governmental restraint (at least here in the US, dunno about Canada). Considering that FDR's campaign against Hoover consisted entirely of bashing Hoover's meddling in the economy, which was partly responsible for the onset of the Great Depression, only to then expand governmental influence in the economy to levels Hoover hadn't imagined in his wildest dreams, the 30s were hardly an example of free market economics at work. Look at FDR's New Deal, which promised (and mostly delivered on) huge government "public works" projects, welfare, social security, higher taxes, higher spending, more regulations, and redistribution of wealth. The fact that the Great Depression lasted as long as it did is a testament to the failure of controlled market economies.

2. The Keynsian Policy - You *HAVE* to spend money to make money. When the government spends money to create make-work projects (cross-ref: Hoover Dam), this creates jobs for people, who have money to spend on necessities and luxuries, thus creating more jobs. From a relatively small injection into the economy, you gain a exponential growth.

And in order to pay for public works benefits, you have to either:
1. tax the crap out of people and businesses, in which case businesses can't afford to hire as many people so fewer people have money to spend, and those who do have jobs pay more in taxes and therefore have less to spend on necessities and luxuries, therefore leaving no net benifit (and usually a lot of cost, as public works projects generally spend more on bureaucracy than private sector companies, meaning that less of the money spent on them goes towards actual production);
2. borrow the money, in which case investors' and banks' money is tied up in government loans, which leaves less to loan to entrepreneurs, cutting the source of most economic growth and almost ensuring stagnation;
3. print the money, in which case you get severe inflation from the expansion of the money supply, so all that brand new money that the workers have from their fancy new government jobs doesn't buy anywhere near as much as it used to, and the people who had jobs before now can't afford to buy as much either, so the economy hits the shitter because nobody can afford to pay for luxuries anymore (and some of them have trouble affording the necessities).

Eg.
Government plans to build new highway, hires workers
Workers are paid and spend money on food
Money from buying food goes into supermarket, and to farmer who grows the food (assuming it's a Canadian Supermarket and Canadian Farmer)
Supermarket can open new stores and hire more employees
Employees are paid and spend money on....

This still leaves no net benifit over a private company building the same thing.

Cons:
Does Not work for Stagflation (Times of low employment, but high inflation).
Cost is directly proportional to circumstances of depression
(Relatively small recession, relatively small injection
Batshit loco Depression, Shitload of money)
John Meynard Keynes wasn't a looker either.

So, if the depression is worse, you have to take more of what little money remains in the economy to cover government spending in a Keynesian model.... and you're not seeing the problem here?

3. Neo-Classical Theory - Does not work for modern economy. Period.

Pros:
None

Cons:
Does not work. Ever.

Must be why I haven't heard much about it. If it's got anything to do with Neo-Cons, I'll bet it doesn't work.

[Seo-X]

I'm sick of politics in Canada, I'll just go vote for the Rhino Party(we still have a Rhino candidate unlike most of the country).

[Fifthfiend]

Waitadamnsecondrighthere.. .Canadian elections?

You guys have elections up there?

How do you keep all the penguins from running off with your ballots?!

...

This has been your Comment From An Ignorant American.
Brought to you by the American Federation for Being Completely Ignorant About Canadans

Blame Canada!

[slightly aboveaverage man]

Well FF, at least we only have to hear about our election for two months, then it's over with.

In America, you have to listen to this campaigning bullshit for an entire year!

(hurrah for snap elections)

[Lucas]

Problems with the Bloc: Too particular to Quebec when they don't have to be. Why not create a Provincial Bloc, keep the same platform and maybe extend it to push for decentralisation everywhere they're elected? The Bloc also has jerky ads that go: "Because we're different". Doesn't that make other people different too or are they not allowed? quebec IS different. far different than the rest of canada, save for montreal, which is more mainstream canada. the bloc exists for the protection of quebec's interests, and that includes separation of need be. i don't see the defenders of quebec trying to go to alberta and rally up support there.

[slightly aboveaverage man]

And their is a provincial bloc: it is the Parti Quebecois. the PQ was intended as the main party of the Province, while the Bloc was there to provide the (at that point) separatists with Federal Representation. After the 1995 Referendum and the decline in support for Separatism, the Bloc slightly morphed into a role of a special interest group for Quebec, rather than a completely separatist party. I do hope that they lose more seats then they gain though.

In my opinion, out of the 308 seats up for grabs, the best result in my opinion would be:

Liberal Party: 156
Conservative Party: 105
New Democratic Party: 25
Bloc Quebecois Party: 15
Green Party: 5
Independant: 2

The Liberals holding the slimmest of Majorities, but being under emense pressure from the Opposition Conservatives and New Democrats; leaving enough Bloc members to provide an effective voice for Quebec's needs, and a Green presence for a voice for Environmental issues. Martin would be forced to tread lightly and drop his arrogance, while the Opposition parties would still be able to bring new and refreshing ideas to the floor of the House of Commons.

I do not think a Minority siduation would work, simply because of the people in charge. All three of them are so stuffed up with their own egos that they would never be able to get along. Paul Martin is so used to getting his own way, compromise is not really in his vocabulary. Stephen Harper's party is so far Right that it would be unthinkable for him to join forces with the NDP. He has even publicly stated that he does not want to work with Jack Layton. And Jack Layton, he is not one for cooperation. Jack is the whiney guy in the background trying desperatelly to get heard. He is one of those people who does not debate, he forces his opinions on other people... I mean just look at the Leadership Debate.

[Devon Lake]

*sigh* I can't read further in the thread without commenting on this.

In the Soviet Union, when people had to wait for hours in line just to buy groceries (actually, it was waiting for half an hour in one line to get potatoes, half an hour in another to get bread, half an hour in another to get milk, half an hour in another to get meat, and then another half an hour in a line to pay for each of them after you got them (yes, that's a line to pay for each item, not a line to pay for everything), they said it was just an "inconvenience" and they were glad that class wasn't brought into something as basic as food. After all, you wouldn't want to eat more expensive food just because you had a rich daddy.... Well, until they noticed that even poor people in the US ate better and spent less time waiting in line for their food than the USSR. 'Cause, you know, if you have to wait half an hour for bread in the US, you find another supermarket.

*Yawn* Oh, a comparison to the Soviets eh? *Ignores and moves on without dignifying such a ridiculous comparison with a response*

Ditto for hospitals. In Canada, 18% of the population goes without necessary healthcare because there aren't enough doctors to supply their needs. In the US, if your doctor told you you'd have to wait months for an operation you needed tomorrow to stay alive, you'd find another doctor who could perform it right away. Last time I went to the emergency room, you know how long I waited? Less than 5 minutes. Filled out a form, got treated, was out in less time than you spent waiting to see a doctor. It cost a lot less than the difference that Canadians pay in taxes, too, so even though I'm pretty poor (made $15,000 last year, and I'm paying my own way through college with that). In America only about 5% of the population goes without necessary healthcare, even though 15% of the population doesn't have health insurance. Even the poor here have at least some access to healthcare, and can usually get faster and better service than in Canada.

Have any references for that? The only people I’ve ever heard of who couldn’t get treated for whatever ailed them were other transsexuals, and that’s just because no doctors seem to feel like specializing in our area of health. Whatever deficiencies our system has is a matter of piss poor funding rather than a failure to privatize a human right.

I’m sure that they could privatize the police to if they wanted. Think of it, each household could by police insurance form numerous competing departments, and depending on the coverage level they pay, they can count on given levels of protection. If the police must prioritize their response to a few given crimes in progress, they can just quickly look up the membership levels of the given complainants and go after whoever’s got the more prestigious membership. Doesn’t that sound fair? A business tycoon can have an armed police escort everywhere they go and trained officers guarding their property day and night, as they deserve for getting a good job and contributing to society.

So what if a few poor bums who can’t afford to pay for police insurance get mugged, raped or killed with no protection whatsoever from the police force and thus no recourse against the assailants? The lousy bums should have just gotten some damned jobs! With the lower tax rate of not having to fund inefficient government police, anyone should be able to pay; letting those who can’t afford police protection die is just natures way of taking out the trash. Capitalism’s supply and demand nature would ensure that societies policing needs be served far better than some socialist government department, and besides, having such a burgeoning public sector would help boost the economy!

And yet, the notion of my right as a Canadian to security of person and to life itself being enforced only based upon my income and my demand as a consumer is far too revolting for me to ever accept such a thing, no matter how much more “efficient” it may be. It is well worth the price to sacrifice a smidgeon of quality if it means that we are all treated equally human, and thus all equally leant our rights AS humans.

Any government spending is an injection into the economy? Lethal injection, maybe. Keep in mind that any government spending has to be paid for somehow. There are only three ways to pay for government spending:
1. Raise taxes, in which case that government "injection" comes at the cost of government siphoning money out of the economy. This directly hurts businesses, laborers, and consumers.
2. Borrow money, in which case the amount of money banks and investors have to loan to entrepreneurs, who cause the majority of economic growth, is limited by the amount government borrows.
3. Print money, which causes inflation, which, in addition to making everyone's money worth less and being generally bad for people, it destabilizes the money. If you don't even have stable currency, how the hell can you expect to have a stable economy?

*Ahem* THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE MILITARY SPENDING AS MUCH AS IT IS ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!

quebec IS different. far different than the rest of canada, save for montreal, which is more mainstream canada. the bloc exists for the protection of quebec's interests, and that includes separation of need be. i don't see the defenders of quebec trying to go to alberta and rally up support there.

What about Newfoundland? It’s like the Merry Old Land of OZ…

[MY2K]

You can view where everyone's standing on all the issues and what they say they'll do about it here:
http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2004/static/issues/issues.html

[Kuja]

Well, since I've missed the mainstream of all the commentaries and there's no chance of me feeling like going back and reading it all, I'll just make a blanket statement.

In Canada, there has been about three months top of pre-election jabber, with one month of campaigning, ending on June 28th, 2004. End end.

In the United States, there has been election coverage since about the begining of 2004, with about a full year of campaigning, with it ending likely sometime late into 2004. Early 2005 if Florida has a say.

So, all I can say is, yay! We only have to spend a quarter of the time the Americans do, getting shoveled nothing but bitter spiteful lies! WOO!

[AnonCastillo]

*Yawn* Oh, a comparison to the Soviets eh? *Ignores and moves on without dignifying such a ridiculous comparison with a response*

Comparing one socialized system to another and pointing out that the flaws of one are present in the other isn't a very ridiculous comparison. This is especially true since you specifically complained about the long wait times (4 hour wait for emergency room treatment (which, if it's a real emergency, is just fucking insane) and about having to wait months for certain treatments), and long wait times were a major problem in the soviet economic model.
Comparing your socialized system to one that's been tried and failed, and pointing out that yours suffers from many of the same flaws, is perfectly valid.

But, hey, as long as you're going to ignore a valid complaint and instead bring up a straw man argument and claim that I want to privatize the police, let me bring up an argument for you. Since being able to eat is a more basic human right than medical care, why should some people get to eat more or better food simply because they're rich? By the same arguments you use to defend nationalized health care, why not just have the government take ownership of every farm, supermarket, restaurant, etc. in Canada and control the food supply?

Have any references for that? The only people I’ve ever heard of who couldn’t get treated for whatever ailed them were other transsexuals, and that’s just because no doctors seem to feel like specializing in our area of health. Whatever deficiencies our system has is a matter of piss poor funding rather than a failure to privatize a human right.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/102703C.html

Also, you've admitted to the extreme delay in treatment - if somoene dies during the 4 hour wait for emergency treatment, or the months or even years of waiting for major operations, then they obviously didn't get necessary health care - care which they would have gotten in a more timely fashion in the US.

Besides, the fact that transsexuals aren't getting equal treatment under the Canadian health care system is another point against it. In the US, any doctor who wants money will treat you. There are specialists here who deal with transsexuals, because transsexuals are paying customers just like anyone else. Sorry doctors in Canada are more biased.

I’m sure that they could privatize the police to if they wanted. Think of it, each household could by police insurance form numerous competing departments, and depending on the coverage level they pay, they can count on given levels of protection. If the police must prioritize their response to a few given crimes in progress, they can just quickly look up the membership levels of the given complainants and go after whoever’s got the more prestigious membership. Doesn’t that sound fair? A business tycoon can have an armed police escort everywhere they go and trained officers guarding their property day and night, as they deserve for getting a good job and contributing to society.

So what if a few poor bums who can’t afford to pay for police insurance get mugged, raped or killed with no protection whatsoever from the police force and thus no recourse against the assailants? The lousy bums should have just gotten some damned jobs! With the lower tax rate of not having to fund inefficient government police, anyone should be able to pay; letting those who can’t afford police protection die is just natures way of taking out the trash. Capitalism’s supply and demand nature would ensure that societies policing needs be served far better than some socialist government department, and besides, having such a burgeoning public sector would help boost the economy!

Nice straw man argument. Way to bring up something completely unrelated to the topic at hand, and that I don't even support.

The difference between a government run police force and a government run health care system (or government run food supply) is that I don't believe that health care (or even food) is a human right. You don't have a right to force others to provide for you if you can't do anything for them to make it worth their while. However, you do have a right to not be violently attacked, robbed, or otherwise negatively interfered with.

*Ahem* THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE MILITARY SPENDING AS MUCH AS IT IS ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!

Never said it wasn't. I think the US should pull it's military out of most of the 100 or so countries we have troops stationed in. Worst part is, there hasn't been a day since WWII that we haven't had troops stationed in both Germany and Japan. We still have troops in Kosovo, even though our "police action" there supposedly ended years ago. We probably won't pull out of Iraq for decades. I think our military should be strong enough to protect us from foreign invasion, and to retaliate if necessary, but not to occupy half the world. Don't think I'm only getting pissed about government spending when it's interfering in the economy and making everybody poorer in order to fund programs that are less efficient and provide worse service to fewer people than their capitalistic counterparts.

[Archbio]

And their is a provincial bloc: it is the Parti Quebecois. the PQ was intended as the main party of the Province, while the Bloc was there to provide the (at that point) separatists with Federal Representation. After the 1995 Referendum and the decline in support for Separatism, the Bloc slightly morphed into a role of a special interest group for Quebec, rather than a completely separatist party.

I didn't mean a party like the Bloc who runs in provincial elections, I meant some kind Party for the Proncinces' Interests or something like that, running in the federal elections with the aims of giving every power more province against the federal government. Come to think of it, that's not really the Bloc at all!

quebec IS different. far different than the rest of canada, save for montreal, which is more mainstream canada. the bloc exists for the protection of quebec's interests, and that includes separation of need be. i don't see the defenders of quebec trying to go to alberta and rally up support there.

And the rest of Canada is different compared to Quebec! Of course the rest of Canada is a more homogeneous, but it's still not the absolute zero of difference.

But, hey, as long as you're going to ignore a valid complaint and instead bring up a straw man argument

I actually thought bringing up the Soviet Union was already a straw man argument, about as much as comparing your view to a "privatize all" impulse was.

You don't have a right to force others to provide for you if you can't do anything for them to make it worth their while. However, you do have a right to not be violently attacked, robbed, or otherwise negatively interfered with.

That's a perfectly arbitrary distinction. Protection is a service, and injuries and infections and the like are negative interference with individuals. Also arbitrary is the right of health specialists to be paid as high as the market dictates (they are already being paid, from what I understood). I am having a lethal case of disagreement with you, and I won't argue any more than that.

Altough I still think a minoritarian government composed by either the Conservatives or Liberals, it might not be feasible. But I really can't stand them having the majority. I think my vote is leaning for the Bloc.

[Kuja]

Altough I still think a minoritarian government composed by either the Conservatives or Liberals, it might not be feasible. But I really can't stand them having the majority. I think my vote is leaning for the Bloc.

Although it is pretty much all but confirmed that the Bloc or the NDP will hold the ballance of power, it would be nice to see an NDP majority...Ha ha! I'm just kidding. The day the NDP forms a majority is the day that eternal peace breaks out in the Middle East.

But chances are, once we do have a Minority Government in place, it won't last for too long, as in the past there's been about eight federal minorities, and none of them have outlasted a year and a half.

[slightly aboveaverage man]

AHA! that is where you are wrong. Lester B. Pearson, founder of Canada's Flag and the Canada Pension Plan, Nobel Prize winner, managed to hold two minority governments together from 1963-1968, the first lasting 2 years, and the next one lasting 3. Pearson was a negotiator by trade, thus he was perfectly suited for a Minority government, Martin, Harper and Layton, however, certainly are not.

[Devon Lake]

Comparing one socialized system to another and pointing out that the flaws of one are present in the other isn't a very ridiculous comparison.

It’s about as fair to cast Canada in the same light as the former Soviet Union for its left wing leanings as it is to cast the US in the same light as the Nazi Germany because of its right wing leanings. We aren’t imprisoned here with giant walls and sent to gulags for speaking out against the government, likewise, the sort of pathological resource rationing and mismanagement of the Soviet Union are unknown to us.

This is especially true since you specifically complained about the long wait times (4 hour wait for emergency room treatment (which, if it's a real emergency, is just fucking insane) and about having to wait months for certain treatments), and long wait times were a major problem in the soviet economic model.

That might make sense if, you know, Canada shared the economic model of the Soviet Union, but since we don’t, you might as well be trying to pin Canada’s healthcare woes on the socio-economic situation of the 19th century Ottoman Empire.

But, hey, as long as you're going to ignore a valid complaint and instead bring up a straw man argument and claim that I want to privatize the police,

As long as you’re suggesting that Canada’s under the reign of Stalin, I think I’m likewise entitle to few snide comments of my own.

Since being able to eat is a more basic human right than medical care, why should some people get to eat more or better food simply because they're rich?

Honestly, I’d be all for a national food program, and hell, housing for that matter, but I’m quite a bit farther to the left than your average Canadian. However, there’s an important difference between what is considered a right and a luxury; this is a concept you will find in our healthcare system to. If I have breast cancer, it is my right to be given the treatments I need to save my life. However, in the case of something that doesn’t actually affect my health like breast enlargement, then that would be something I myself would have to pick up.

As for food, it really doesn’t take very much to meet your average person’s dietary needs; what’s rice, a variety of vegetables, pasta, bread, water and a all the other dietary staples cost? Essentially nothing in the grander scheme of our budget. It really shouldn’t be such a hassle to provide that free of charge to the entire populace. The thing is though, most North Americans like to gorge themselves stupid with copious amounts of meats, snacks, sweets, dairy products, delicacies and so on and so fourth, most of which contain next to no nutritional value, and more calories than could be burned off by an arctic explorer.

Now, in my opinion, morbid obesity is a luxury, something that we not only CAN do without, but really probably should do without (not that I’d deny it to anyone), thus it ought to be financed by each individuals own disposable income. So, there’s really no need to nationalize the entire agriculture and food industry when the actually part of it we NEED is such a small portion of it. It would be just fine and dandy though for the government to pass out food stamps for rice, veggies, and water to everyone who needed them though.

Likewise for shelter, I really don’t think it would be such a travesty to lend families in need a little one bedroom apartment to jam into free of charge. Now, if a person wants, you know, a NICE house, with some room in it and some actual possessions, that’s something they ought to pick up the tab for themselves considering as far as basic human needs go, they could get by just fine in a little one room flat, possibly with communal washrooms and bathing. The reason most people don’t champion such causes though, is that dinky shack and a bowl or rice don’t really cost anything to your average North American; on the other hand, heart surgery can cost more than your annual income, and that’s why folks are more eager to secure THAT right.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/102703C.html

Also, you've admitted to the extreme delay in treatment - if somoene dies during the 4 hour wait for emergency treatment, or the months or even years of waiting for major operations, then they obviously didn't get necessary health care - care which they would have gotten in a more timely fashion in the US.

Nice statistics, but it really doesn’t get to the core of the matter. The problem is that our doctors are paid SHIT. In economics class I saw a bar graph showing that a Canadian doctor gets paid about as much as a worker on an assembly line; the only reason our doctors would even appear to be fiscally well off is because they’re forced to work 60 hour shifts.

This isn’t due to any fundamental flaw in public healthcare though; it’s due to funding mismanagement. It’s not an issue of private vs. public; it’s an issue of no-funding versus funding. Cut funds to any government department and you know what happens? It goes to shit. The same goes for schools, roads, the military, you name it. I’ll admit that privatized medicine is probably better than horrifically under funded medicine, but then, I’d rather have a public Medicare system that had the money it needs to function.

[Devon Lake]

Besides, the fact that transsexuals aren't getting equal treatment under the Canadian health care system is another point against it. In the US, any doctor who wants money will treat you. There are specialists here who deal with transsexuals, because transsexuals are paying customers just like anyone else. Sorry doctors in Canada are more biased.

Oh no, it’s not a problem with bias. Doctors are still paid to see us and treat us just as much as they are any other patient. The problem lies in the fact that there isn’t enough expertise out there for us. My girlfriend tried getting hormones from a regular MD, but she refused saying it would be against the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm since she didn’t really know anything about HRT in transsexuals. Likewise, a lot of endocrinologists are a bit iffy on the subject too because they’ve never been trained for proscribing female hormones to male patients; if they wanted to do it properly, they’d have to dig into the medical journals.

So, as it is, there’s pretty much only one guy for all of Ottawa and the surrounding countryside who’ll proscribe hormones. If Medicare was funded back to sensical levels so that we could afford to pay our doctors decent wages, there might be more specialists around who’d take the time to do their homework on us. Let me interject that it really isn’t much better finding hormones in the US though, because likewise, not a lot of doctors know what the hell you’re doing. The only benefit you have is online pharmacists who you can buy hormones off without a prescription so that you can medicate yourself (Which as you might be able to imagine, can be very dangerous.) All of that “Harry Benjamin Standards of Care” Shit that’s in place on both sides of the border really doesn’t help either. No matter what we’re forced to wait if we go through the “proper” medical system.

Another issue is sexual Reassignment Surgery. My province used to cover it, but the problem is that a handful of stupid unscrupulous politicians delisted it from the provincial healthcare plan without talking to ANY doctors in the area about it. Stupid Conservatives! Every reputable psychiatrist working in the area could tell them it’s as psychologically necessary as reparative plastic surgery for a burn victim, but NO, they were just a bunch of bigots who decided for themselves that us freak trannies don’t deserve to be treated as humans with needs like everyone else! *grrrrrrrr* But then, few HMOs in the US cover SRS either; Next to none from what I hear. Actually, most drug plans in the US refuse to pick up hormones either.

Nice straw man argument. Way to bring up something completely unrelated to the topic at hand, and that I don't even support.

*whiny annoying child voice* You staaaaaaaaarted it! I mean, as long as you were bringing up something like socialism of the Soviet Union, I feel entitled to interject with my own stupid comparison. I mean, you were arguing for the merits of privatization in general after all, or at least that’s what I can only assume by comparing a specific public institution with the bloody Soviet Union.

Nice straw man argument. Way to bring up something completely unrelated to the topic at hand, and that I don't even support.

The difference between a government run police force and a government run health care system (or government run food supply) is that I don't believe that health care (or even food) is a human right. You don't have a right to force others to provide for you if you can't do anything for them to make it worth their while. However, you do have a right to not be violently attacked, robbed, or otherwise negatively interfered with.

Well what can I say, that makes no sense to me. Simple nourishment is a luxury for those who can afford it and yet when it comes to personal security we’re all supposed to pull together and finance the protection of absolutely everyone? So what’s the fundamental difference between nourishment and protection? How is saying to those who can’t afford it, “Screw you, buy your own food!” different than saying likewise to the underprivileged, “Screw you, buy your own protection!”?

Never said it wasn't. I think the US should pull it's military out of most of the 100 or so countries we have troops stationed in. Worst part is, there hasn't been a day since WWII that we haven't had troops stationed in both Germany and Japan. We still have troops in Kosovo, even though our "police action" there supposedly ended years ago. We probably won't pull out of Iraq for decades. I think our military should be strong enough to protect us from foreign invasion, and to retaliate if necessary, but not to occupy half the world. Don't think I'm only getting pissed about government spending when it's interfering in the economy and making everybody poorer in order to fund programs that are less efficient and provide worse service to fewer people than their capitalistic counterparts.

Jolly good. My point was merely that funding the military has the same merits from an economic standpoint as funding say, hospitals. The thing is, between the two, why the hell would anyone choose the military? I mean, it’s basically funding a bunch of burly macho men to run around with guns slung over their shoulder all day. War is simply the most idiotic waste of resources imaginable. That we would actually invest billions in sending our young healthy people to just run around and kill foreigners and blow shit up while foreign armies try to do the same is simply unbelievable. We might as well take all that equipment, manpower, science, technology, food, and so on, and just hurl it into the ocean; at least that way it would be less destructive. Don’t even get me started on the current state of the US and its annual military budget that takes up half of government revenues and equals somewhere around the budgets of every other military in the world combined. I mean, FUCK THAT’S DUMB.

[Chahiero]

The Liberal support here is overwhelming, or so it would seem.

I despise the liberal government more than I do any other government here past or present. Martin has conflict of interest written all over him in big black letters and out local candidate couldn't even formulate a logically constructed argument.

I'm a month off being able to vote, so naturally my opinion doesn't matter, but of the representatives in our riding, the Conservative representative is definetely the best bet. He has a well-constructed and thought out platform, which I can't say for the other candidates in the riding except the Green party candidate, and the Conservative candidate also is very open and accessible to people in his riding. I couldn't even get a hold of the Liberal candidate outside of the debate they had that I attended, whereas the Conservative candidate I have seen quite a few times outside of such functions. He goes that extra bit, 110% percent, and THAT is what we need in a government.

When it comes down to it I vote for a representative and not a party, because the representative is YOUR representative, regardless of party.

[Devon Lake]

Well, the election's done and over with and here are the results:
135 seats to the Liberals
99 seats to the Conservatives
54 seats to the Bloq
19 seats to the NDP

So, we have a minority Liberal government. *Phew* All of those projections that the Liberals and Conservatives would be neck and neck with the Conservatives forming the next government turned out to be crap. What a releif. It's nice that the Liberals got cut down; hopefully it'll smarten them up. I would have liked a stronger showing for the NDP though. I was really happy watching the priliminary poles which had them at 27 seats or so. Anyhow, I think this is sufficient for keeping the pure evil of Stephen Harper and his goons at bay. It'd be nice to see a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP; hopefully then Martin can be kept to all his elft wing promises. So ya, what a releif...

I voted NDP but they came dead last in my riding to the Conservatives... DOH!

[Kuja]

You forgot the one seat that was Independent out in BC.

I'm just glad it's finally over. I'm in the Kings-Hants riding that was getting national attention because of Brison moving across the floor to the liberals. And he won. People here love him. We held a debate at our school with the candidates from Liberal, Conservative, NDP, and Green Party. I was impressed by Brison, he was the only candidate that didn't engage in mudslinging or childish name calling. But I just bet he wanted to yell this out...

[Bob Mullan, Torrie] Where did all the money from the sponsorship scandal go?
[Scott Brison, Grit] I wasn't in the party at the time, how the hell would I know?

In order to get the 155 seats that the Liberals will need in order to pass any legislation through, they'll need not only the NDP, but likely the one Independent that won from BC.

[slightly aboveaverage man]

Correction, It is 97 seats for the Conservatives.

I was mainly disappointed in the Bloc's showings. this is a dark day for the "No" vote.
I am most disappointed in the fact that David Pratt did not get re-elected, he was the best Defense Minister that Canada has had since the 1970's.

I was happy that my vote counted though, it helped my Liberal Candidate Geoff Regan (Fisheries Minister) to hold on to his seat. I was also pleased to see Michael Savage get the seat in Dartmouth-Cole Harbour. Savage is the son of former NS Premier John Savage, and has shown that he is every bit as competant as his father was.

On the flip side of things, I am so glad that Tony Valerie (Transport Minister) did not keep his seat. He may be Liberal, but he is the slimyest Liberal in the Caucus. good ridance.

But most of my predictions came true: Quebec's hatred of the Conservatives and the NDP resulted in their throwing their votes to the Bloc. Atlantic Canada shut out most of the Conservatives and voted Liberal. The Liberals maintained a solid minority to retain government. the NDP did not grow that much. And the Conservatives only grew by the same rate that they have for the last decade: in spurts of about 8 to 15 seats per election.

Now lets see how well Martin can pull this off.

(Quick question: did Tony Clement and Belinda Stronach get in?)

[Kuja]

Quick question: did Tony Clement and Belinda Stronach get in?

I don't know about Stronach, but when I was watching CTV around midnight A.S.T, they projected Clement as having lost, so I'd have to say he didn't. I'm too lazy to doublecheck.

So basically, voters all over the country...

-Defaulted to Martin
-Humored Harper
-Fled to Duceppe
-And admired Layton's hustle but still found him too creepy.

[slightly aboveaverage man]

-And admired Layton's hustle but still found him too creepy.

Yeah... he kind of has that look about him that says: "I just did your sister, and now I'm gonna do you!"